Sue Kedgleyhttp://suekedgley.com
Articles posted by Sue Kedgley, writer and a campaigner for safe, healthy food, animal welfare, parliamentary reform and other issues. enLet’s avoid the Auckland Paradoxhttp://suekedgley.com/article/let%E2%80%99s-avoid-auckland-paradox
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It&rsquo;s well established that once traffic growth in a city reaches a certain point, it clogs a city, destroys its quality of life, and threatens its economic and social viability.</p>
<p>One only needs to think of Auckland, London before the congestion charge, Los Angeles and many other car dependent cities.</p>
<p>In Auckland, despite decades of motorway building, congestion is gradually strangling the city, at a huge cost to its economy and quality of life.</p>
<p>Some refer to it as the Auckland paradox &ndash; the fact that the motorway system that was built <em>expressly</em> to reduce congestion, has instead steadily increased it, bringing the city to a virtual halt in peak hour traffic.</p>
<p>By contrast, one of the great assets of Wellington is how easy it is to get around our city &ndash;thanks in large part to our excellent public transport network.</p>
<p>But according to a recent transport report, once the motorway network north of Wellington is completed, Wellington is likely to end up as car congested, car dependent and difficult to get around in as Auckland.</p>
<p>This ominous fate is signalled in a report prepared for the Greater Wellington Regional Council by international transport experts, Arup and Opus International Consultants, entitled TN24;Baseline Forecasting Report. The report is written in transport planning gobbledygook, and so is difficult to decipher. But buried in the report are some horrifying forecasts of how congestion in the Wellington region will increase, once Transmission Gully, the Kapiti Expressway and the Petone Grenada Link Road are built.</p>
<p>Most people who support Transmission Gully and the Kapiti motorway do so because they think it will ease early morning congestion and make it easier for them to travel to work in Wellington.</p>
<p>The government, too, has justified the vast expense of building these motorways by claiming they are essential for economic growth and the movement of freight and people around our region.</p>
<p>But according to this new report, these assumptions are completely wrong. Instead of reducing congestion, and making it easier to get around the region, the new motorway network will steadily <em>increase</em> congestion in the region and in Wellington city. By 2021, the report forecasts, congestion in the Wellington region during the morning rush-hour will increase by 80%, rising to a staggering 96% by 2041, while congestion during the evening peak will increase by 71% in 2041.</p>
<p>In Wellington city, congestion during the morning rush hour will increase by 26% in 2021, and by 80% in 2041.</p>
<p>Can anyone imagine what our city would be like with 80% more congestion during the morning rush-hour, on our narrow and already car-congested streets? The congestion we experienced after the recent storm, would be a foretaste of what&rsquo;s in store for us on a daily basis --traffic at a standstill, our enviable quality of life ruined, and our econonic and social viability threatened.</p>
<p>How can these forecasts be correct, some will say. And the answer is that it has been shown all around the world that building more motorways and expanding road capacity contributes to the very problem it is intended to solve, because it inevitably encourages more people to use their cars, and steadily increases the amount of traffic on the roads, until they become hopelessly congested.</p>
<p>This is exactly what happened in Auckland. Back in the 1950&rsquo;s Auckland&rsquo;s transport planners promised, as they are still promising today, that building motorways would solve Auckland&rsquo;s congestion problems. And so a far-sighted plan to electrify and underground the Auckland rail network was abandoned in favour of building an impressive motorway network. But by the mid 70&rsquo;s traffic congestion had grown far more rapidly than transport planners had predicted, while the public transport network had deteriorated through neglect and lack of investment, and public transport patronage had collapsed.</p>
<p>So Auckland embarked on an even more ambitious motorway network &ndash;one that planners are still focussed on completing today. And Auckland has become what it had planned for &ndash;a car dominated city, with extraordinarily high levels of congestion and a pitiful public transport system, where most people have no alternative than to travel by car.</p>
<p>The new report suggests that this is what will happen in Wellington, if we allow more and more motorways to be built in our region, resulting in a vast increase in the number of cars pouring into our compact central city.</p>
<p>Greater Wellington Regional Council has not yet publicly debated the implications of these new forecasts for Wellington. In fact the report, and its contentious forecasts, are not yet available on their website.</p>
<p>I think it&rsquo;s time we publicly debated these forecasts, and their implications for our region&rsquo;s transport priorities. I am sure most Wellingtonians would agree that an 80% increase in peak-time congestion would be completely unsustainable in our city, and would undermine our quality of life and economic viability.</p>
<p>Faced with the harsh reality of these forecasts, many Wellingtonians might also agree that the viability and livability of Wellington depends on reducing, not increasing traffic, by investing in alternatives to cars such as light rail, improved public transport, walking and cycling, and other work related strategies such as flexible working hours.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/local-government">Local Government</a></div></div></div>Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:31:47 +0000Sue Kedgley107 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/let%E2%80%99s-avoid-auckland-paradox#commentsKiwis in the dark about irradiated fruit and vegetableshttp://suekedgley.com/article/kiwis-dark-about-irradiated-fruit-and-vegetables
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I'm wondering why the Government is about to approve the importation of irradiated apples, peaches, apricots and nine other fruit and vegetables from fruit fly-infested Queensland.</p>
<p>After all, we have an abundance of locally grown produce here that doesn't need to be irradiated, and it's still difficult for our growers to get their apples sold in Australia. So why is our Government bending over backwards to allow even more irradiated produce into our food chain? Nor can I understand why our Government wants to remove the requirement that irradiated food must be labelled.</p>
<p>Surely consumers have a right to know whether the apples they are buying are fresh, or have been imported from Queensland and exposed to high doses of radiation to sterilise them and kill off potential fruit fly lava?</p>
<p>At present irradiated food is supposed to be labelled as having been "treated with ionising irradiation". But the New Zealand and Australian governments want to get rid of this requirement.</p>
<p>They've asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand to investigate whether there are "better ways than labelling to communicate the safety and benefits of irradiated food to consumers".</p>
<p>The governments are under pressure to do this from Queensland, which wants to be able to export fruit to New Zealand, despite the fact that Queensland is crawling with fruit flies, including the devastating Queensland fruit fly that infests more than 100 different species of fruit and vegetables.</p>
<p>It's also under pressure from retailers who are reluctant to sell irradiated food, for fear that consumers won't buy it. This explains why very little irradiated food is on sale in supermarkets, even though tomatoes, capsicums, persimmons, nine different tropical fruits and herbal teas and spices have already been approved for sale.</p>
<p>Paul Harker, head of produce for Woolworths Australia, voiced retailers' concerns at a 2012 horticulture conference. Irradiated food is "an extremely emotional product", he told the conference, and retailers were not going to try to convince consumers there's nothing wrong with irradiation, he warned. Unless there was a concerted campaign to promote irradiated food "that was not led by the people peddling irradiation", and involved the government and other industry groups, "the last thing I am going to do is plonk it on my shelf because I can tell you that fresh produce sales will die".</p>
<p>The governments have taken on board retailer concerns, and are casting around for ways to make irradiated food "more palatable" to consumers. The main strategy they have come up with is to ensure that consumers won't realise they are buying it, by removing the requirement for mandatory labelling.</p>
<p>If they succeed, retailers will be able to sneak irradiated produce into the food chain, and it will be sold, unlabelled, as if it was "fresh".</p>
<p>But irradiated food is anything but fresh. It's been exposed to radiation doses that are between three and 15 million times the strength of x-rays. The Brisbane radiation facility uses Cobalt 60 to irradiate food, a radioactive material that is manufactured in Canadian nuclear reactors, and shipped to Australia in special unbreakable steel canisters.</p>
<p>I visited the Brisbane irradiation facility in 2004. Boxes of food travel by conveyor belt into an irradiation "chamber". The irradiation process breaks down the molecular structure of food; destroys vitamins in food, and creates free radicals and other "radiolytic compounds" that have never been found in nature, and whose effect on human health is not known. FSANZ claims that despite these changes, irradiated produce is perfectly safe to eat. But no long-term studies have been conducted to determine the safety of irradiated food. Also of concern is the fact that in 2008 the Australian Government was forced to ban irradiated cat food after more than 80 cats died or became seriously ill after eating irradiated cat food.</p>
<p>This begs the question - if cats can die, or become ill from eating irradiated cat food, what could be the cumulative effect on humans of eating significant quantities of irradiated food? There's no benefit to New Zealand consumers, and only risks to our growers, from imported irradiated produce.</p>
<p>If a viable fruit fly, hidden in imported fruit from Queensland, were to survive irradiation and become established here, it would be a horticultural disaster. Given these risks, the Government needs to explain why it intends to allow even more irradiated fruit and vegetables to be imported and why it's supporting a proposal to remove the requirement to label irradiated foods.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/fruit-and-veges-sm.jpg" width="500" height="331" alt="Fruit and vegetable stand" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/food-labelling">Food Labelling</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&amp;objectid=11392092" class="unlink">Column on irradiated food</a></div></div></div>Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:13:11 +0000Sue Kedgley105 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/kiwis-dark-about-irradiated-fruit-and-vegetables#commentsTime to get rid of old, polluting school buseshttp://suekedgley.com/article/time-get-rid-old-polluting-school-buses
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It's&nbsp;time to question why the oldest, most polluting buses in the Wellington region are used to transport children to school each day.</p>
<p>It's become the norm for operators to reserve their most clapped-out buses for schoolchildren mainly because they get a special exemption from NZ Transport Agency bus rules.</p>
<p>NZTA stipulates bus operators must remove vehicles from their fleet when they are 20 years old. But under a schoolbus exemption, operators can keep them in service for a further six years if they are used as schoolbuses.</p>
<p>The rationale is that children don't mind travelling around in dilapidated old buses, and the buses are used for only a few hours a day, so they are less likely to break down continuously.</p>
<p>The problem is that 20-year-old schoolbuses don't meet any emissions standards, and spew out huge amounts of diesel fumes that contain a toxic brew of air contaminants. A 20-year-old bus can emit 10 to 100 times as many fumes, including heavy metals, nitrogen oxide and soot particles, than cleaner alternative buses.</p>
<p>The soot particles in diesel fumes have been recently classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation - in the same category as arsenic, asbestos and second-hand smoke. These particles are so tiny they can lodge deep inside the lungs, enter the bloodstream and can contribute to lung cancer, asthma, heart disease and other respiratory diseases.</p>
<p>The WHO experts who reassessed diesel fumes concluded that children are most at risk from diesel fumes, as their lungs and other organs are still developing.</p>
<p>This means children who travel on older schoolbuses are being routinely exposed to carcinogenic compounds in diesel fumes that can increase their risk of developing asthma and other respiratory and health problems.</p>
<p>American researchers have discovered that vehicle pollution inside old schoolbuses can be considerably worse than pollution outside a bus.</p>
<p>In 2001 American researchers measured vehicle pollution inside old Los Angeles schoolbuses, and found to their astonishment that the pollution inside them was five times higher than pollution outside. The pollution levels were highest in the back of a bus, especially when the windows were closed, and increased when a bus was going uphill or idling.</p>
<p>The researchers concluded that children who rode in old schoolbuses for many years were likely to be exposed to significant and potentially hazardous levels of toxic diesel exhaust - 30 times higher than is considered acceptable by government agencies. Their study has been replicated several times in the United States, with similar results, and has prompted campaigns there to improve the quality of schoolbuses. Many American states now require old buses to be removed from the fleet.</p>
<p>Alternatively, they must be retrofitted with devices that control air pollution, such as diesel particulate filters, or use alternative clean-burning fuels.</p>
<p>Many states also prohibit schoolbuses from idling for more than three minutes.</p>
<p>I'm not aware of any similar study to measure vehicle pollution inside schoolbuses here, but it's safe to assume that 20-26-year-old schoolbuses would emit similar levels of diesel soot particulates and other hazardous pollutants.</p>
<p>Now that we know that diesel soot particles can cause cancer, and that children are particularly sensitive to these carcinogenic compounds, we cannot in all conscience continue to allow our children to travel to school in dirty, polluting buses every day.</p>
<p>To protect their health, we need to remove the NZTA exemption for schoolbuses, and retire all buses from service after 20 years, with no exceptions.</p>
<p>Agencies that contract schoolbuses, like the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Ministry of Education, must insist bus operators use clean, non-polluting buses that meet modern emission standards. At the very least, they should require operators to retrofit old schoolbuses, or use clean-burning fuels.</p>
<p>And we need new rules around the idling of schoolbuses near schools. A lot of drivers keep bus engines running at schools while waiting to pick up students, because old buses can take some time to get started. So we also need new rules that stipulate that schoolbuses may not idle for more than a few minutes near schools.</p>
<p>Measures such as these can ensure that children in the Wellington region are not exposed to their biggest dose of air pollution on their commute to and from school.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/wellington-trolleybus.jpg" width="1024" height="790" alt="Wellington trolley bus" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/local-government">Local Government</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/63995704/Old-diesel-schoolbuses-a-legalised-health-hazard" class="unlink">Old, diesel schoolbuses a legalised health hazard </a></div></div></div>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:21:44 +0000Sue Kedgley106 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/time-get-rid-old-polluting-school-buses#commentsAnimals deserve vote of supporthttp://suekedgley.com/article/animals-deserve-vote-support
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There's been a proliferation of pre-election political panels in the run-up to this election - more than I can remember, which is a healthy sign in our democracy.</p>
<p>But the most interesting one I have attended was a political panel on animal welfare - a first for this country.</p>
<p>When I entered Parliament 15 years ago, MPs could not take animal welfare seriously. They would snigger, crack jokes or yawn loudly whenever the subject was raised. But as more and more incidents of animal cruelty have come to light, such as the recent footage of a pig farmer clubbing a pig to death with a hammer, concern about animal welfare is rising.</p>
<p>And that is no doubt why all the main parties turned out to debate whether factory farming has a future here.</p>
<p>Factory farming is a huge and secretive industry. Ninety million animals are reared inside factory farms each year - 3 million hens, 85 million chickens and 700,000 pigs.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Rabbits, ducks and fish are also reared intensively, as are beef cattle in several feedlots.</p>
<p>Most of these animals are locked up inside aluminium sheds that only a few people are permitted to enter. The only way most of us can find out what happens inside these factory farms is when groups such as Farm Watch film them illegally.</p>
<p>Thanks to their footage, and the work of animal advocacy groups including SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation), we know the awful conditions factory farmed animals are forced to endure during their short and miserable lives, locked up in cages or crammed inside sheds.</p>
<p>Pigs are highly intelligent and sociable animals, and far surpass the mental capacity of dogs. Hens, too, are curious and sociable creatures, with a surprising intelligence and a language of their own. And this begs the question, do we have a right to require intelligent and sociable animals to live miserable lives of suffering, just to satisfy our desire for cheap meat and eggs?</p>
<p>Surprisingly, perhaps, all of the MPs on the political panel agreed that factory farming practices such as battery hen cages, farrowing crates and sow stalls are cruel and unacceptable, and must be phased out.</p>
<p>Even dairy farmer and National party MP Shane Ardern, who chairs Parliament's committee, agreed that battery hen farming is cruel, and that the tiny bit of extra space hens will have when battery cages are finally phased out in 2022 and replaced by so-called "colony" cages, is unacceptable.</p>
<p>Where the MPs differed was on how long these cruel forms of factory farming should be allowed to remain. Sow stalls are supposed to be gone by December next year, but poultry farmers can continue to use battery cages for another eight years, and then replace them with "colony" cages.</p>
<p>Trevor Mallard told the meeting that Labour is committed to phasing out cruel factory farming practices, including "colony" cages, and hopes to have legislation in place in 2016.</p>
<p>Mojo Mathers said the Green Party wants cages and all other cruel forms of factory farming phased out immediately.</p>
<p>"These animals work incredibly hard for us," she said. "The least we can do is treat them humanely and with respect."</p>
<p>New Zealand First and National have no such plans, and no clear animal welfare policy either. Both Richard Prosser, from New Zealand First, and Shane Ardern, from National, acknowledged that keeping hens in "colony" cages is cruel. But their parties support the present legislation that will allow hens to remain in such cages indefinitely.</p>
<p>But whatever their policies, it was refreshing to see parliamentarians debating animal welfare seriously.</p>
<p>Animals cannot vote in the upcoming election, but we can, on their behalf. Now, thanks to the pre-election debate (which was filmed and is being shown on SAFE's website), we know where political parties stand on animal welfare, and can vote accordingly.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/nz-dairy-farm.jpg" width="2048" height="1536" alt="New Zealand dairy farm. " /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/animal-welfare">Animal Welfare</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&amp;objectid=11322268" class="unlink">Column on how we can vote on behalf of the animals</a></div></div></div>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 02:20:07 +0000Sue Kedgley104 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/animals-deserve-vote-support#commentsAction needed to rid us of deadly diesel fumeshttp://suekedgley.com/article/action-needed-rid-us-deadly-diesel-fumes
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Two years ago the International Agency for Research on Cancer categorised diesel exhaust fumes as class one carcinogens in the same category as asbestos, arsenic and cigarette smoke.</p>
<p>It said the scientific evidence about the harm of diesel exhaust fumes was compelling and its conclusion was that "diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in humans".</p>
<p>The reason is that when diesel burns inside an engine it releases particles that stay in the airways and can trigger asthma, bronchitis and other lung conditions, including cancer.</p>
<p>The tiniest particles can penetrate the cells of lungs, enter the bloodstream, deliver toxins to internal organs, affect blood vessels and contribute to heart attacks and strokes.</p>
<p>Children are especially at risk from particulates in diesel exhaust fumes because their organs are still developing and they have a faster breathing rate.</p>
<p>The agency, part of the World Health Organisation, says diesel fumes are as carcinogenic as second-hand cigarette smoke, and has called for urgent global action to reduce exposure.</p>
<p>You would expect a flurry of governmental action in the wake of this rather startling announcement. For while it's possible to avoid second-hand smoke from tobacco, it's almost impossible to avoid exposure to diesel fumes.</p>
<p>Most of our buses and trucks are powered by diesel and the number of diesel cars has risen steadily from 11 per cent of our fleet in 2000 to 17 per cent in 2013. We have one of the oldest, and therefore most polluting, diesel vehicle fleets in the western world.</p>
<p>Most of us are exposed to diesel fumes whenever we walk, cycle or drive in an urban environment. Almost all of us are exposed to diesel fumes on a daily basis, which is why it's such a serious public health issue.</p>
<p>So far, however, there's been no discernible response from the Government to the WHO announcement. Sure, sulphur levels in diesel were reduced some years ago, and emissions standards for new vehicles tightened in 2008. But these standards only apply to new vehicles since 2008.</p>
<p>Even though tighter emissions standards for diesel vehicles reduce nasty emissions such as nitrogen oxides, they don't get rid of the tiny, carcinogenic particulates at the core of health concerns about diesel engines. Nor do they reduce the carbon that diesel engines emit.</p>
<p>Many cities around the world are switching to electric-powered public transport, such as light rail and electric buses, because they are concerned about the health effects of diesel exhaust and want to make public transport and the urban environment more attractive.</p>
<p>But in New Zealand, where about half our buses were made before 2003 and are dirty and polluting, there's been no similar move - other than the introduction of electric trains into Auckland.</p>
<p>Auckland has so far rejected light rail as a public transport option, while the Wellington Regional Council, incomprehensibly, is proposing to scrap its fleet of 60 clean, zero-emitting, climate-friendly electric trolley buses.</p>
<p>As harmful emissions from diesel buses continue to pollute our inner cities, making them unhealthy and unattractive environments, surely it's time for a rethink.</p>
<p>Auckland has the worst air quality in Australasia and is twice as polluted as Sydney. A recent global report on air pollution found 23 sites in Auckland with dangerous levels of carcinogenic particulates caused by diesel emissions.</p>
<p>This level of air pollution is not only dangerous and unacceptable, it's costing us dearly. Auckland Council estimates the health costs of air pollution at about $465 million a year. Mayor Len Brown recently suggested that the pollution in Auckland is so bad the underground city rail link needs to be sped up to reduce the fumes.</p>
<p>I applaud that. But surely if he is serious about reducing diesel pollution, it's also time to ditch its fleet of dirty, polluting buses, and replace them, over time, with zero-emitting electric buses or light rail.</p>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/automobile_exhaust_gas.jpg" width="1623" height="1347" alt="Diesel exhaust from a vehicle. " /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/general">General</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&amp;objectid=11285624" class="unlink">Column on the need to get rid of dirty diesel buses</a></div></div></div>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 02:16:28 +0000Sue Kedgley103 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/action-needed-rid-us-deadly-diesel-fumes#commentsScrapping trolley buses foolhardyhttp://suekedgley.com/article/scrapping-trolley-buses-foolhardy
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Many Wellingtonians regret the fact our forefathers got rid of Wellington's trams 50 years ago. Now there's another, similarly short-sighted proposal on the table: to scrap our pollution-free, climate-friendly fleet of trolley buses and replace them with diesel buses.</p>
<p>At a time when fossil fuels are becoming scarcer and pricier, and we're being exhorted to switch to clean, sustainable energy sources, it makes no sense to replace trolley buses that run on renewable energy with diesel buses powered by fossil fuel.</p>
<p>And if we're serious about climate change, and reducing our carbon footprint, why would we replace zero- emitting trolleybuses with diesel buses that produce carbon emissions?</p>
<p>Nor does it make any sense to increase Wellington's fleet of diesel buses when international research is highlighting the damaging health effects of diesel emissions.</p>
<p>Diesel fumes contain hazardous pollutants and fine particles that are carcinogenic and contribute to lung cancer, asthma and other diseases. Regular exposure to diesel fumes is as likely to cause cancer as is passive smoking.</p>
<p>The latest model Euro 5 diesel buses reduce diesel emissions, but they still emit the fine particles that cause serious health problems. Some cities are proposing to eliminate diesel buses entirely from their downtown areas for just this reason.</p>
<p>Trolley buses have other advantages over diesel buses. They are quiet, comfortable and smooth to ride, and much better at climbing hills. Their electric engines are far more efficient than diesel engines, which is why trolley buses last about twice as long as diesel buses. They also save us thousands of gallons of imported diesel each year and make us less vulnerable to future oil shocks.</p>
<p>But they do have disadvantages. They rely on overhead wires, and they don't have the flexibility of diesel buses. But this is a problem of the past.</p>
<p>New electric technology is available to equip trolley buses with rechargeable battery systems. This makes trolleys much more flexible, and allows them to travel substantial distances without relying on overhead wires.</p>
<p>Environmentally progressive cities such as San Francisco, Vancouver, Rome and Strasbourg have recently invested in new generation trolley buses.</p>
<p>The other disadvantage of our trolley bus fleet is that the electricity generators that power it are 50 years old and in urgent need of upgrading.</p>
<p>Ever since the Wellington City Council sold its power company in 1993, there's been no investment in upgrading the substations that power the buses, and Wellington Electricity Company estimates it will cost anywhere between $16 million and $52 million to do the job.</p>
<p>Many people consider this cost prohibitive, and it's being presented as one of the main justifications for scrapping our trolley buses.</p>
<p>But we've just spent $600 million upgrading our trains, so why not invest in upgrading the substations that power the trolley buses, and give these substations another 50 years of life - especially when it will cost almost as much ($20 million) to take down the overhead wires, as it will cost to fix the subway stations?</p>
<p>The trolley bus fleet itself has recently been upgraded at a cost of $40 million. These refurbished buses have a further 10 to 15 years of life in them. Why scrap them?</p>
<p>AND what would replace them? The Greater Wellington Regional Council hasn't decided yet. Various options, such as hybrid buses and battery-powered electric buses, are being mooted.</p>
<p>Hybrids are realistic - but they should be used to replace our existing diesel buses, not our non-polluting trolley buses.</p>
<p>Battery-powered electric buses are a new technology still in its infancy. A regional council report evaluating future options points out that it could be five to 10 years before they are a reliable form of public transport. And they have their shortcomings. Their batteries are toxic and difficult to dispose of, and they make the vehicles heavier and so less efficient.</p>
<p>But in the end, I suspect diesels will be chosen, because they are cheaper. The New Zealand Transport Agency, which will fund the purchase of future buses, has made it clear that cost will be a major factor in its decision. This explains why the report evaluating options for future buses in Wellington assumes that our fleet of trolley buses will be replaced by Euro 3 diesel buses.</p>
<p>This is foolish short-term thinking - the sort of thinking that saw off Wellington's trams. Today, trams and their modern incarnation, light rail, are seen as the most efficient and environmentally friendly method of transport ever invented.</p>
<p>It would be foolhardy in 2014 to ditch our electric trolley bus network and close off options for using renewable energy to power our transport fleet.</p>
<p>Globally, cities are moving towards electric powered public transport. Why would Wellington, which once had the goal of becoming the first carbon-neutral capital in the world, head off in exactly the opposite direction?</p>
<p>The regional council will decide whether or not to scrap our trolley buses on June 24.</p>
<p>It is at present consulting Wellingtonians about this proposal. Be sure you have your say before it's too late.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/wellington-trolleybus_0.jpg" width="1024" height="790" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/local-government">Local Government</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/9962840/Scrapping-trolley-buses-foolhardy" class="unlink">Column on scrapping the trolleybuses</a></div></div></div>Tue, 06 May 2014 22:54:37 +0000Sue Kedgley102 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/scrapping-trolley-buses-foolhardy#commentsSunbed regulation neededhttp://suekedgley.com/article/sunbed-regulation-needed
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It's a mystery to me why sunbeds are unregulated in New Zealand.</p>
<p>We know they increase our risk of developing skin cancer and that the more people use them, and the younger they start using them, the greater their risk.</p>
<p>We know, too, that thousands of young women use them on a regular basis, oblivious to the risks.</p>
<p>We also know we have the highest rates of melanoma and skin cancer in the world. So why on earth wouldn't we regulate sunbeds, to reduce the significant and entirely preventable public health risk they pose?</p>
<p>According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, ultraviolet radiation from sunbeds is carcinogenic to humans and poses a health risk similar to asbestos and arsenic. The agency says sunbeds increase our risk of developing a melanoma by 20 per cent, and this risk increases by 75 per cent when people start using them before they are 30.</p>
<p>It is calling on all governments to regulate their use and many have already done so, including 10 European nations and several states in Canada and the US.</p>
<p>Other governments, such as Brazil and Australia, are banning them altogether.</p>
<p>But here in New Zealand, sunbed machines remain completely unregulated. There are thousands of these machines in gyms, hairdressing salons, tanning clinics and people's homes and anyone can operate them. There's no limit on the amount of UV radiation operators can use, or how long people can be exposed to it. Nor is there any standard training for sunbed operators, and many unqualified staff operate them.</p>
<p>A voluntary industry standard stipulates that no one with pale skin or who is under 18 should use them. The Ministry of Health has asked district health boards to visit sunbed operators in their areas to provide guidance on safety practices.</p>
<p>But despite industry claims that the standard is being adhered to, successive surveys by Consumer New Zealand have found it is not. Their most recent survey, published earlier this year, found that a third of operators still don't display notices warning customers of the risks from UV light, or stipulate that sunbeds should never be used by people whose skin is fair, burns readily or is freckled.</p>
<p>That's why a coalition of organisations, including the Cancer Society, have been pleading with governments for many years to regulate the industry and make compliance with the standard mandatory.</p>
<p>Finally, in April last year the Associate Minister of Health, Jo Goodhew, announced that the Government would regulate the industry and prohibit the use of sunbeds for people aged under 18.</p>
<p>More than a year later there's still no sign of any legislation and no prospect of it emerging before the election. After the election, I suspect, it will continue to languish on the backburner in the face of other pressing political priorities. Even when legislation is eventually drafted and tabled, it could take a further two or three years to weave its way through the labyrinthine processes of Parliament.</p>
<p>Meantime, thousands of young women will routinely and inappropriately use unregulated sunbeds for cosmetic tanning, and vastly increase their risk of getting skin cancer and melanoma.</p>
<p>Faced with government inaction, the Auckland Council has taken the initiative and is intending to regulate sunbeds from July 1, and require sunbed businesses to comply with a new code of practice. But why should operators in the rest of New Zealand remain unregulated, and why should those of us who live outside Auckland not be protected from this significant public health risk?</p>
<p>While our Government drags its feet on the issue, the Australian Government is acting swiftly. All sunbed machines will be banned by the end of this year.</p>
<p>More than 2000 New Zealanders are diagnosed with melanoma each year and more than 300 die from it, and there's no question that sunbeds are contributing to our soaring melanoma rates. It's a shocking disease and it's difficult and expensive to treat. Surely we should be taking similar action here.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/general">General</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&amp;objectid=11246378" class="unlink">Column on the need to Regulate Sunbeds</a></div></div></div>Tue, 06 May 2014 22:51:41 +0000Sue Kedgley101 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/sunbed-regulation-needed#commentsMake Radio NZ an election issuehttp://suekedgley.com/article/make-radio-nz-election-issue
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Conservative governments all over the world seem to dislike public service broadcasting. George Bush targeted public service broadcasting; John Howard made attacking the Australian Broadcasting Corporation a regular sport, and now Tony Abbott has launched an all-out assault on the ABC, accusing it of being unpatriotic, and threatening to cut its funding.</p>
<p>Here in New Zealand, our own conservative Government seems to have a similar aversion to public service broadcasting. As soon as it took office six years ago, it stripped TVNZ of its public service mandate, leaving it as a nakedly commercial broadcaster; ditched two public service television channels, TV6 and 7, and froze Radio New Zealand's funding indefinitely.</p>
<p>The Minister of Broadcasting, Jonathan Coleman, also demanded that the Radio New Zealand Board "change its mindset", explore other revenue streams and more commercial models of funding such as sponsorship.</p>
<p>The Government's aversion to public service broadcasting reflects its suspicion that public service broadcasters harbour some secret left-wing bias. Why should the state fund a broadcaster that is often critical of its political agenda, you can hear them arguing, and anyway, why shouldn't radio be left to commercial broadcasters, and the free market, to provide?</p>
<p>The Government clearly doesn't buy the argument that it's important, for a healthy democracy, that there are some independent broadcasters left whose sole mandate is to serve the public interest, not commercial interests; who are not beholden to advertisers or sponsors, and who can hold corporations and governments to account without fear or favour. Nor does it seem to accept that an independent and impartial news and current affairs service is a crucial part of any democracy, and a powerful check on government and corporate power alike.</p>
<p>But the truth is that it's hard to get quality broadcasting in a commercial environment, as Brian Edwards pointed out some years ago, because the saturation level of advertising that's required to keep a commercial radio station viable makes in-depth coverage of complex social and political issues almost impossible. There's no room for extended interviews and in-depth discussions of complex ideas, which are the daily fare of Radio New Zealand.</p>
<p>You need only listen to current affairs on commercial radio to see how true this is. The constant refrain of Larry Williams and Duncan Garner, is "sorry, we've run out of time. We've got to go to an advertising break."</p>
<p>It's inevitable, too, that if a broadcaster is reliant on advertisers and sponsors it will become, in some sense, beholden to them, and this will compromise its editorial independence somewhere down the line. I mean, realistically, you cannot get stuck into a sponsor.</p>
<p>That's why it's so important that we have at least one non-commercial broadcaster left, with an exclusive mandate to serve the public interest, not commercial interests, and why it shouldn't be allowed to wither on the vine as a result of its frozen budget.</p>
<p>The problem for Radio NZ is how long can it survive with its funding frozen, especially when an independent audit of the organisation, in 2007, found that it was under-funded by about $7 million a year, under-staffed and under-resourced.</p>
<p>So far Radio NZ has soldiered on stoically, and coped with its shrunken budget by selling off some land in Auckland, giving staff minimal pay increases, making internal savings, and selling two grand pianos. And it has managed, so far, to retain a loyal audience of about 500,000 listeners, at a time when radio audiences are slowly declining.</p>
<p>Chief executive Paul Thompson said that as well as refreshing its radio interviewers, Radio NZ needs to expand into other digital platforms and make other innovations if it is to survive and compete with new digital media.</p>
<p>This sort of expansion costs money - something Radio NZ can't access when its funding is shrinking by the year. Thompson acknowledged that advertising would kill Radio NZ, and its trusted brand, and he said that it wouldn't commercialise its existing services.</p>
<p>Clearly, as the Government keeps the screws on Radio NZ, there's not much it can do except tough it out, and hope the funding freeze will end some time soon.</p>
<p>So perhaps it's time to make the future of Radio NZ, and public service broadcasting generally, an election issue.</p>
<p>If Radio NZ's half a million loyal listeners made it plain that they would vote only for a party that was committed to adequately funding it, perhaps the Government would sit up and listen.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/saveradionz_thumb.jpg" width="427" height="355" alt="Save Radio New Zealand logo" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/general">General</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&amp;objectid=11229714" class="unlink">Column on Radio New Zealand</a></div></div></div>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 01:13:17 +0000Sue Kedgley100 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/make-radio-nz-election-issue#commentsTime to swallow hard truth on mercuryhttp://suekedgley.com/article/time-swallow-hard-truth-mercury
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Looking back, the once common practice of painting lead on to women's faces to lighten their skin seems bizarre.</p>
<p>I suspect future generations will also consider it bizarre that for more than a century we routinely put mercury amalgam fillings into our teeth.</p>
<p>Mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal - more toxic than lead and arsenic. It's also a potent neurotoxin and cell toxin, and even minute amounts of mercury pose a significant risk to our nervous, respiratory and immune systems.</p>
<p>Dentists started using amalgam fillings, made up of 50 per cent mercury, around 150 years ago, before there were any safety regulations or testing requirements in place. And they have been using it ever since.</p>
<p>It's only recently that the wisdom of putting mercury amalgam fillings into teeth has been questioned, as more and more evidence about the harmful environmental and health effects of mercury have come to light.</p>
<p>These days, dentists have to use expensive filter processes to capture the escaping mercury vapour from mercury amalgam fillings. And they have to go to considerable lengths to dispose of old fillings (now categorised as toxic waste) because mercury is recognised as a serious environmental hazard.</p>
<p>But while mercury is categorised as a hazardous substance in the environment, it's still officially deemed to be safe when it's put into our mouths.</p>
<p>The New Zealand Dental Association and the Ministry of Health insist that mercury amalgam fillings are safe, durable and effective, because only small amounts of mercury vapour are released from fillings, and do not cause any real harm.</p>
<p>But it's hard to understand how these claims can be verified when the World Health Organisation says there is no safe level of exposure to mercury, and that exposure to even minute amounts of mercury poses a significant health risk.</p>
<p>The problem is that when people chew, grind or brush their teeth, amalgam fillings release small amounts of mercury vapour which is absorbed into the lungs and passes into the bloodstream, where it circulates around the body.</p>
<p>The human body cannot break mercury down into less harmful material, so the mercury accumulates in various tissues and organs, such as the kidneys, thyroid and the brain, where it can cause neurological, renal and other health effects.</p>
<p>Mercury can also cross the placenta into a developing fetus, and pass into breast milk. This is a real concern, as children and developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects of mercury. That's why many countries advise against its use for children, pregnant women and people with kidney disease.</p>
<p>Some people are more susceptible to mercury toxicity than others, and there have been persistent concerns that mercury accumulating in the brain could be a factor in the upsurge in Alzheimers disease.</p>
<p>As more and more information about its potentially harmful effects has come to light, countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have banned mercury amalgam fillings.</p>
<p>Other countries, however, including New Zealand, insist they are safe and allow their widespread, unrestricted use.</p>
<p>There are no guidelines about the number of mercury treatments people can safely have, for example, and no monitoring of the levels of mercury amalgam in our population either.</p>
<p>And in an apparent breach of the Health and Disability Commissioner's Code of Consumer Rights, dentists are not required to advise consumers about the potential risks of mercury fillings, or of alternative options, so patients can exercise informed choice. To the contrary, if dentists were to suggest that removing amalgam could alleviate a disease, they would be deemed to be acting unethically and could be censured.</p>
<p>Our laissez-faire approach to mercury amalgam could change, however, as a result of a new United Nations Convention to phase out the use of mercury globally, which was signed by more than 100 countries, including New Zealand, last year.</p>
<p>The treaty, which will eventually be legally binding, calls on governments to phase out all sources of mercury, including mercury amalgam.</p>
<p>As there are perfectly durable and effective composite fillings that dentists can use instead of mercury amalgam, surely it's time to question why we aren't taking a more precautionary approach - and at the very least stipulating that dentists should not use mercury amalgam fillings in children, pregnant women and people with kidney disease?</p>
<p>Surely, too, it's time to question why the government considers mercury safe when it's used as a filling in teeth, but as an environmental hazard anywhere else?</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://suekedgley.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/pictures/pouring_liquid_mercury.jpg" width="1209" height="818" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/general">General</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&amp;objectid=11221360" class="unlink">Why we are still putting mercury amalgam fillings in our teeth?</a></div></div></div>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:38:58 +0000Sue Kedgley99 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/time-swallow-hard-truth-mercury#commentsSupermarket spotlight overduehttp://suekedgley.com/article/supermarket-spotlight-overdue
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I'm delighted that Labour MP Shane Jones has shone the spotlight on supermarket tactics in New Zealand.</p>
<p>And I'm pleased, too, that the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss, has raised it with the Commerce Commission, as there's really no other way of establishing if the claims are true, as trading relations between supermarkets and their suppliers are intensely secretive, and suppliers are unwilling to blow the whistle for fear of losing their business and access to the marketplace.</p>
<p>I asked the Minister of Justice to initiate a Commerce Commission investigation into supermarket practices five years ago, and presented him with a range of allegations about dubious tactics that supermarkets were using with suppliers, but he said there wasn't enough evidence to justify an inquiry at that time. So I'm hoping that an inquiry will finally happen.</p>
<p>Whatever the veracity of Shane Jones' specific allegation, I'm informed that relationships between Progressive Enterprises and their suppliers have deteriorated significantly over the past year.</p>
<div id="DivContentRect" style="margin-left:20px;clear:both;">&nbsp;</div>
<p>Suppliers claim the supermarket company has begun to employ increasingly hardball tactics in its dealings. They say robust negotiations have often deteriorated into ultimatums.</p>
<p>There are also wider complaints about the supermarket duopoly in New Zealand. Our grocery retail sector is the most concentrated in the world, with just two supermarket chains, Foodstuffs and Progressive, controlling around 95 per cent of our grocery retail sector.</p>
<p>This gives them enormous market power which they can use to set the rules, dictate conditions and squeeze more and more money out of suppliers. Suppliers cannot refuse their requests, or afford to get offside with them, no matter how unfair they may appear to be, as supermarkets are, effectively, the gateway to the consumer in New Zealand.</p>
<p>According to numerous suppliers I have spoken to, supermarkets routinely use a variety of trading practices that I believe are unfair. They will sometimes change orders that have been agreed to, at the last minute or even retrospectively. They will sometimes threaten to de-list suppliers if they supply a competitor, or impose additional rebates or charges on suppliers.</p>
<p>They also routinely discriminate against suppliers in favour of their own in-house "home" brands, and this is making it increasingly difficult for small suppliers to compete. (Around a quarter of the products sold in supermarkets these days are home brand products.)</p>
<p>They're also concerned that the trend towards more and more food being sold at a discount or on special, to appeal to price-conscious consumers, is penalising suppliers. For when food is sold at a discount, it's the supplier that takes the hit in terms of reduced profits, while the supermarkets retain their fixed retail margins. Similarly, when food is promoted, it's normally the supplier, not the supermarket, that is asked to pay for the cost of promotions.</p>
<p>Across the Tasman, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is investigating complaints that supermarkets misuse their market power to engage in anti-competitive or unfair trading practices with suppliers.</p>
<p>It's also investigating whether supermarkets discriminate against suppliers in favour of their own in-house "home" brands, impose more and more "rebates" or additional payments on suppliers, and threaten to remove products from supermarket shelves if they don't comply with their requests.</p>
<p>The commission has spoken to 50 suppliers, confidentially, and is widening its investigation to look at the underlying imbalance in the bargaining power between supermarkets and their suppliers.</p>
<p>Clearly we need a similar inquiry here which looks at the wider issue of whether our supermarket duopoly is misusing its extensive market power to engage in unfair trading practices with suppliers - as well as the specific complaint that Shane Jones has laid.</p>
<p>It would need to grant suppliers a guarantee of confidentiality to participate in the inquiry, as the Australian inquiry has, otherwise few would be willing to come forward.</p>
<p>Even more importantly, perhaps, we need a supermarket code of conduct in New Zealand that governs relations between supermarkets and their suppliers, and ensures that suppliers are treated fairly. At present there's no oversight or scrutiny over how supermarkets operate.</p>
<p>Britain has a supermarket code of practice, and an Ombudsman with the power to investigate breaches of the code anonymously, and to impose hefty fines. And Australia is also looking at introducing a similar code.</p>
<p>If we don't follow suit and set some rules as to what constitutes fair and unfair practices, more and more suppliers will be driven to the wall.</p>
<p>When local producers exit the market, supermarkets often turn to overseas markets to source cheaper products and ingredients.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/general">General</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-link field-type-link-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Link:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=11201721" class="unlink">Column on Supermarket tactics</a></div></div></div>Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:34:45 +0000Sue Kedgley98 at http://suekedgley.comhttp://suekedgley.com/article/supermarket-spotlight-overdue#comments